SANDIA REPORT

SAND2008-1125
Unlimited Release
Printed March 2008

Conformal Coating Value/Risk

Assessment for Sandia Satellite
Programs
Edward M. Russick1, Gayle Echo Thayer2

1Organic Materials Department 2Remote Sensing/Communication Systems Department

Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185

Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation,

a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy’s
National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.

Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited.

Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by
Sandia Corporation.

NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of
their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any
warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise,
does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The
views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors.

Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced directly from the best
available copy.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from

U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Telephone: (865)576-8401
Facsimile: (865)576-5728
E-Mail: [email protected]
Online ordering: http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available to the public from

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Rd
Springfield, VA 22161

Telephone: (800)553-6847
Facsimile: (703)605-6900
E-Mail: [email protected]
Online order: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.asp?loc=7-4-0#online

2
 SAND 2008-1125
Unlimited Release
Printed March 2008

Conformal Coating Value/Risk Assessment for

Sandia Satellite Programs
Edward M. Russick1, Gayle Echo Thayer2
1
Organic Materials Department
2
Remote Sensing/Communication Systems Department

Sandia National Laboratories

Albuquerque, NM 87185

ABSTRACT

Conformal coatings are used in space applications on printed circuit board (PCB)
assemblies primarily as a protective barrier against environmental contaminants. Such
coatings have been used at Sandia for decades in satellite applications including the GPS
satellite program. Recently, the value of conformal coating has been questioned because
it is time consuming (requiring a 5-6 week schedule allowance) and delays due to
difficulty of repairs and rework performed afterward are troublesome. In an effort to find
opportunities where assembly time can be reduced, a review of the literature as well as
discussions with satellite engineers both within and external to Sandia regarding the value
of conformal coating was performed. Several sources on the value of conformal coating,
the functions it performs, and on whether coatings are necessary and should be used at all
were found, though nearly all were based on anecdotal information. The first section of
this report, titled “Conformal Coating for Space Applications”, summarizes the results of
an initial risk-value assessment of the conformal coating process for Sandia satellite
programs based on information gathered.
In the process of collecting information to perform the assessment, it was
necessary to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the entire satellite box assembly
process. A production time-line was constructed and is presented in the second section of
this report, titled “Satellite Box Assembly”, specifically to identify potential sources of
time delays, manufacturing issues, and component failures related to the conformal
coating process in relation to the box assembly. The time-line also allows for
identification of production issues that were anecdotally attributed to the conformal
coating but actually were associated with other production steps in the box assembly
process. It was constructed largely in consultation with GPS program engineers with
empirical knowledge of times required to complete the production steps, and who are
familiar with associated risks from activities such as handling, assembly, transportation,
testing, and integration into a space vehicle (SV) system.
Finally, section three titled, “Summary and Recommendations for Future Work”,
briefly summarizes what we have learned and describes proposed future work.
4
Contents
SECTION 1: CONFORMAL COATING FOR SPACE APPLICATIONS.......................7
I. Benefits.................................................................................................................7
II. Types of Conformal Coatings ...........................................................................10
III. Risks of Using Conformal Coating..................................................................12
IV. Hysol PC18M Conformal Coating Specific to GPS Satellite Programs .........14

SECTION 2: SATELLITE BOX ASSEMBLY................................................................15

I. Conformal Coating in the Production of Satellite Box Assemblies ...................15
II. Satellite Box Assembly Timeline......................................................................16

SECTION 3: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ......22

Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................23

References..........................................................................................................................24

Figures
1 Tin Whiskers and Conformal Coat Mitigation ................................................................9
2 GPS Satellite Box Assembly Process Flow Timeline....................................................21

Tables
1 Conformal Coating Thickness tolerances from NASA Technical Standard
NASA-STD-8739.1 ...............................................................................................13

5
6
SECTION 1: CONFORMAL COATING FOR SPACE
APPLICATIONS

I. Benefits
The primary purpose for conformal coating of PWB assemblies in space
applications is the protection of electronic assemblies from environmental contaminants
including particles, dust, dirt, moisture, corrosive vapors, and fungus1,2,3. Many
electronic assemblies are tightly packed with components, thus having small spaces
between conductors (e.g., solder pads and leads). First, particles, that settle onto
electronic modules during production, ground testing, and launch or buoyant particles in
the zero-gravity space environment on orbit that contact and span two or more closely
spaced conductors may result in a short circuit, leading to potentially serious electrical
failures in the satellite system. Despite efforts to keep satellite assemblies clean and free
from contaminants, the possibility that stray particles, metal shavings, dust, and dirt will
be present exists. Conformal coating provides a layer of electrical insulation preventing
contact between physical contaminants and conductive features on PCB modules.
Second, moisture and corrosive vapors over time may result in corrosion of metals in
PCB assemblies. Though conformal coatings are not hermetic and thus do not seal
electronics from moisture and solvent vapors, they do act as barriers to slow diffusion of
moisture and corrosive vapors through the polymer before reaching electronics. Third,
biological contaminants such as fungus may also lead to degradation of PWB assemblies,
conformal coatings help to protect electronics from biological contaminants.
Other benefits of conformal coating electronic assemblies include structural
integrity and the mitigation of tin whiskers, as discussed below.

Structural integrity: Conformal coatings are required to adhere to all the surfaces of
PWB assemblies to which they are applied, and must have sufficient mechanical
properties (e.g., modulus) to be structurally sound and provide reasonable abrasion
resistance. It seems intuitive that a conformal coating applied over electronic
components on PCBs may provide some structural integrity and protection for solder
joint connections against mechanical shock and vibration. While studies have been
performed to determine the contribution of conformal coating to solder joint reliability in
extreme environments such as thermal cycling and shock/vibration, the results are
coflicting.
Hillman, et.al.6, (Rockwell Collins) performed thermal cycling experiments of
Ball Grid Array (BGA) assemblies that had no conformal coating along with BGA
assemblies that were coated with acrylic and parylene conformal coatings. Test results
showed the conformal coatings provided no significant improvement in solder joint
reliability. Qi, et. al.7, performed thermal cycling and combined thermal cycling and
shock/vibration of BGAs that had been coated with Humiseal 2A64 polyurethane coating
applied in two different ways (spray and dip). Results showed that the coating
application process (spray or dip) had little influence on failure data due to thermal
cycling from -50oC to 150oC and vibration stress levels of 0.045 G2/Hz and 0.10 G2/Hz
over a frequency range of 100 to 1000Hz. However, Darren, et. al.8, discovered one
combination of epoxy and parylene coating that appeared to improve the reliability of
chip-on-board electronic structures, while other coating combinations provided no

7
significant benefit. Blanche (NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center) has observed that
conformal coating may provide an incidental benefit of structural integrity to solder joints
in PWB assemblies, but it is a marginal benefit 9. Blanche recommends the structural
integrity of electronics be derived from good PWB design and appropriate use of
component staking and underfill and not from conformal coating.
Due to lack of data supporting a coating contribution to structural integrity and
reliability of solder joints, it should not be considered a function of conformal coatings,
though in some cases they may provide some marginal benefit.

Tin whisker mitigation: Tin whiskers are elongated thread-like protrusions of tin that
have been observed growing on surfaces of pure tin in the electronics industry. While tin
whisker formation is not fully understood, it is generally accepted that residual stresses in
the metal increase the likelihood of tin whisker formation10-16 . According to NASA,
there are a number of partial and complete losses of military and commercial satellites
that are known or suspected to be caused by tin whiskers or other metal whiskers17. For
example, tin whiskers were determined to be the cause of the loss of a commercial
spacecraft in 1998 10,11. A significant amount of study has been done to determine the
cause of tin whiskers and to mitigate their formation. One study to investigate the
potential for conformal coatings in mitigating tin whisker growth by Woodrow and
Ledbury12 tested six different coatings and found coatings generally suppress tin whisker
formation. Whiskers eventually grew under 50oC/50% RH conditions but did not
penetrate thicker coatings (3.9-6.0 mils). Parylene was most successful, and non-
crosslinked acrylic was worst at suppressing tin whiskers, however, none of the coatings
completely stopped tin whiskers from forming. In additional work, Woodrow13
documented that conformal coatings helped to suppress tin whisker formation as
compared to uncoated controls during 401 days of ambient exposure, however, during
347 days of additional humidity controlled exposure (25oC/97% RH), tin whiskers
penetrated all conformal coatings regardless of thickness. Kadesh and Brusse11
performed a study of Uralane 5750 polyurethane coating commonly used in space
applications to determine its effect on tin whisker growth. The conformal coating
appeared to slow the formation of tin whiskers compared to uncoated specimens.
Whiskers growing under the coating were about 0.05 mm long while the longest whisker
on an uncoated specimen was 2 mm long (0.13 mm/year average growth rate). Whiskers
penetrated thin areas of coating (~0.25 mm thick) but not 2 mil thick areas.
An additional benefit of conformal coating in terms of tin whisker mitigation is
that coatings serve as a dielectric layer to protect electronics from tin whiskers that have
penetrated the coating. In the event that a penetrated whisker breaks off, rather than
contacting electrical components, solder joints, or traces, the whisker would contact the
coating. The conformal coating would protect the electronics from electrical shorting
provided that the potential difference between the electronic components and the tin
whisker does not exceed the dielectric breakdown strength of the coating10.
The work summarized here demonstrates conformal coating may retard the
growth of tin whiskers under certain conditions and can protect electronics from whiskers
that penetrate the coating; however, conformal coatings are not the cure for tin whiskers.
Examples of tin whisker formation with and without conformal coating are shown in
Figure 1. Tin whiskers can and do grow under coatings and may actually penetrate them.

8
It is clear from the literature that conformal coatings do not eliminate tin whiskers, and
other mitigation methods should be used to avoid them. This may be done by elimination
of pure tin and other pure metals known to grow metal whiskers, or by coating pure tin
with eutectic (e.g., tin/lead) solders or with tin/bismuth coating14.

Figure 1: Tin Whiskers and Conformal Coat Mitigation

(http://nepp.nasa.gov/WHISKER/reference/tech_papers/2007-brusse-metal-whiskers.pdf)

(a). Tin whiskers on a plated ceramic chip (b). Nodules formed under 2 mils of
capacitor – no conformal coating. Uralane 5750 conformal coating after 9
years in ambient conditions.

(d). Whisker formed and breaking thru 0.1

(c). Whisker formed and lifting 0.5 mils of
mils of Uralane (same conditions as b).
Uralane (same conditions as b).

9
II. Types of Conformal Coatings
There are five primary types of conformal coating materials used for
environmental protection of electronics: acrylics, silicones, polyurethanes, epoxies, and
parylenes. The first four are typically applied with spray or dip operations, while
parylenes are applied using a vacuum deposition process. Proper selection of conformal
coating material may increase lifetimes and improve performance of electronic
assemblies1.
Several coatings of each type are commercially available18. Information below
from suppliers and users of conformal coatings demonstrate the advantages and
disadvantages of each type.

Acrylic (Type AR): Acrylics1,3,19,20 tend to the easiest of the coatings to process and
apply. They are also relatively easy to repair. Moisture resistance of acrylics is
comparable to that of silicone and polyurethane, but they generally have poor resistance
to petroleum solvents and alcohols. The dielectric strength of acrylic coating is
approximately 1500 volts/mil and the temperature range for acrylic coatings is
approximately -59oC to 132oC.

Advantages:
• Relatively easy to apply and repair (using chlorinated solvents)
• Cures in minutes
• Good electrical and mechanical properties
• Long pot-life with little shrinkage and little or no exotherm during cure which is
desirable to avoid damaging heat-sensitive components

Disadvantages:
• Solvent sensitivity (particularly to chlorinated solvents, which are used to remove
and repair acrylic coatings)

Silicone (Type SR): Due to their flexibility, silicone coatings1,3,19,20 tend to have good
shock resistance. They are generally easy to apply. Spot repairs of silicone can be done
mechanically, but overall removal can be difficult due to solvent and heat resistance of
the material. Dielectric strength is approximately 1100 volts/mil, which is somewhat less
than other coatings, but the flexibility of silicone allows for application of thicker
coatings. The temperature range of silicones is about -65oC to 200oC.

Advantages:
• Useful for higher temperature applications up to 200oC (392oF)
• Excellent humidity and corrosion resistance
• Good thermal endurance, which is good for high thermal dissipating components
(e.g., power resistors)

10
Disadvantages:
• Limited pot-life
• High coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)
• Difficult to repair due to solvent and heat resistance (but can be mechanically
removed)

Polyurethane (Type UR): Polyurethane coatings1,3,19,20 tend to be hard and durable, and
provide excellent abrasion and solvent resistance. Moisture resistance is similar to that of
acrylic and silicone. Relative hardness of coating and cure shrinkage may stress
components. Rework of urethane coatings in localized regions can be done by thermally
softening the material, but removal of large areas is extremely difficult. The temperature
range of polyurethane coatings is approximately -59oC to 132oC. Dielectric strength is in
the range of 1500-2500 volts/mil.

Advantages:
• Available as one-part or two-part systems
• Excellent humidity and chemical resistance
• Outstanding dielectric properties for extended periods of time

Disadvantages:
• Rework and repair can be difficult and time consuming due to chemical resistance
(but localized reworking can be done with thermal softening)
• Require close control of humidity during application – sensitivity to moisture
during cure can cause vessication (blistering) under humid conditions which can
lead to circuit failure

Epoxy (Type ER): Epoxy coatings1,3,19,20 usually consist of a two-part thermosetting

system. They provide excellent resistance to moisture and solvents. The temperature
range of epoxies is approximately the same as polyurethanes. Coatings tend to be hard,
and cure shrinkage may stress components. Repair of epoxy coatings is difficult, and
must be burned through in localized areas. Removal over large areas is nearly
impossible.

Advantages:
• Excellent humidity and chemical resistance
• High abrasion resistance

Disadvantages:
• Inherently short pot-life
• Extremely difficult to remove and repair chemically – chemicals that attack epoxy
conformal coatings also attack epoxy boards and components (repairs must be
made by burning through the coating)

11
Parylenes (Type XY): Parylene coatings21-24 (also called poly-para-xylylene) are applied
by a chemical vapor deposition process where the polymer is vaporized into small
segments (i.e., dimers) and then pyrolized into a monomer as it enters a vacuum chamber
containing an assembly for coating. The monomer simultaneously adsorbs and
polymerizes on the substrate in a very uniform manner. Parylene coating is fairly thin
compared to the other coatings, generally less than 2 mils in thickness. There are three
different types of parylene coatings (Parylene N, C, and D), which vary somewhat in
chemical structure and properties. Parylenes have very high dielectric strength (5500-
7000 volts/mil), and are very resistant to solvents. Parylene is significantly more
expensive than conventional coatings and it is very difficult to remove.

Advantages:
• Exceptional environmental protection and corrosion resistance
• Excellent dielectric strength due to the ability of parylene to adhere and conform
to all surfaces
• Vacuum deposition is very uniform and avoids thin-out, pinholes, run-off and
sagging that can occur with spray and dip techniques

Disadvantages:
• More expensive than spray or dip coating techniques
• Requires special equipment (vacuum chamber for parylene deposition)
• Very difficult to remove parylenes – requires techniques such as plasma etching
or micro-blast abrasion

The 5 different types of conformal coatings have a range of properties, each with
advantages and disadvantages. Thermal, electrical, and mechanical properties, ease of
application and removal are among the properties that should be considered in selecting a
conformal coating. Properties and specifications of conformal coatings are available
from material suppliers.

III. Risks of Using Conformal Coating

Are there risks inherent to conformal coating PCBs that may outweigh the
benefits? Perceived risks include: 1) Mechanical damage of electrical assemblies and
electrical damage due to electrostatic discharge (ESD) incurred during handling; 2)
Electrical failures due to stresses induced by the coating on solder joints. To understand
the reality of these risks, we monitored the current coating process to identify sources of
failures.
In June 2007, we visited GTC Corporation in Albuquerque to observe the
conformal coating process used for Sandia’s satellite assemblies. PCB handling and
subsequent staking, masking, and coating of assemblies were observed. GTC personnel
handled the assemblies carefully at all times to avoid mechanical damage. Workers were
electrically grounded during handling, staking, masking, and coating of the assemblies to
avoid ESD damage to electronics. The actual coating of the assemblies with Hysol
PC18M using a spray nozzle in a spray hood did not appear to introduce any significant
risk of mechanical or electrical damage to the assemblies. The visit resulted in no
obvious problems with the conformal coating process that would result in mechanical or

12
electrical damage to satellite modules.
In addition to the GTC visit, failure report information was gathered from the
failure report database on the Org. 5761 website to determine whether or not failures may
be related to conformal coatings. In June 2007, approximately 700 GPS related failure
reports (i.e., using key words GPS, BDP, BDY, NAP) were found in the database. While
most failure descriptions were not specific or were inconclusive, it was found that about
2.3% of the GPS assembly failures were potentially related to the conformal coating
process. The remaining failures were due to other causes including design problems,
assembly and handling errors, and manufacturer defects. For example, about 13% of the
failure reports described assembly/installation issues of components on PCBs. Based on
this analysis, only a small fraction of the problems encountered with satellite electronics
were due to the conformal coating process.
One well-known risk regarding conformal coatings is the potential for stresses to
be induced by the coating on electronic components during thermal cycling. This is
especially true if the coating is very thick (> 5 mils for many coatings) and if there is a
significant coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch between the coating and the
substrate materials being coated. For example, glass diodes in electronic assemblies may
crack when stress is induced on the diode by a thick conformal coating. Regarding
scenarios such as this, NASA in their “Workmanship Standard for Staking and
Conformal Coating of Printed Wiring Boards and Electronic Assemblies”25 specifies
thickness tolerances for the different types of conformal coatings. The NASA
recommendation for conformal coating thickness is shown in Table 1. James Blanche
(NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center) explained NASA’s experience as, “component
damage from cured conformal coatings is reduced when coatings are applied within the
specified thickness tolerances”9.

Table 1: Conformal Coating Thickness tolerances from

NASA Technical Standard NASA-STD-8739.1

Type of Coating Cured Coating Thickness (in)

Acrylic 0.001 to 0.005
Urethane 0.001 to 0.005
Epoxy 0.001 to 0.005
Silicone 0.002 to 0.008
Parylene 0.0005 to 0.002

While there are risks involved in conformal coating electronic assemblies, they
can be mitigated. The majority of risk is associated with general handling, transport, and
processing of PCBs, factors that are present in other production processes and are not
specific to conformal coating. Appropriate handling, electrical grounding, packaging,
and transport of assemblies before, during, and after coating will help to prevent
mechanical and electrical damage to PCB assemblies. Applying conformal coating at a
thickness within a recommended range will avoid undue stresses that may cause damage
to components and assemblies.

13
IV. Hysol PC18M Conformal Coating Specific to GPS Satellite Programs
The conformal coating used for the GPS satellite program is Hysol PC18M 26
(Henkel Corp.), which is a one-part polyurethane (Type UR) coating that is diluted with
toluene and sprayed on to assemblies in 2 coats on both sides of assemblies, resulting in a
coating thickness of about 5 mils (0.005 inches). PC18M has been used throughout the
life of the GPS program. It passes outgassing requirements for space applications when
moisture and volatiles are properly baked out, and the coating is reasonably removable
for repairs or rework on the underlying electronics (in the event of a repair, the region is
recoated manually using a brush).
From the technical literature and from consultation with other space programs
(e.g., NASA, Lockheed Martin), we discovered that one coating widely used in similar
applications to ours is Uralane 5750 (also called Arathane 5750), available from
Huntsman Corporation.
The present-day process of conformal coating PCBs with PC18M consists of 15
steps, as described below:

1. A readiness review is conducted by Sandia engineers to insure that electronic

modules and motherboards have been properly designed and assembled, and
all transportation documentation is in order for the conformal coating process
to begin.

2. A visual mechanical inspection is performed to identify and repair defects such

as broken or improperly installed components before modules are transported
for conformal coating. This pre-coating inspection is described in
specification MSTC-PS 06-003 27.

3. Modules are transported to the coating facility (e.g., GTC Corp.) by Sandia
personnel. They are packaged in anti-static bags to avoid ESD damage, and
are transported in lined carry boxes to avoid mechanical shock/vibration
damage.

4. A visual inspection of the electronic modules is performed when they arrive at

the coating facility to ensure they were not damaged during transport.

5. Modules are cleaned with ethyl alcohol and isopropanol, which are brushed
and sprayed on the surfaces. Dry nitrogen is used to blow dry excess solvents,
and then the units are placed in an oven at 66oC (150.8oF) for 24 hours or
80oC (176oF) for 18 hours to remove residual solvents.

6. A cleanliness test is performed to insure that the modules have been properly
cleaned.

7. Components are staked where required using 3M® EC-2216 epoxy adhesive.
Depending on the application, the EC-2216 adhesive may be filled with Cab-

14
 o-Sil® fumed silica filler to increase viscosity. Staking is allowed to air dry
until it is tack-free.

8. The areas of modules that are not to be conformal coated are masked. Masked
areas include open connectors, locations where components will be placed
after coating (the coating will subsequently be brushed on), and locations
where mechanical hardware to fasten modules into the satellite boxes will be
attached. Except in these described cases, coating is applied to all electrically
functional areas of modules (though coating cannot be applied under ball grid
arrays (BGAs) or column grid arrays (CGAs) which are not accessible).

9. Modules are warmed in an oven in preparation for conformal coating.

10. Spray coating of Hysol PC18M is performed in four directions to coat around
all sides of components on modules. There are two coats applied in this
manner on each of the two flat module sides.

11. An overnight air cure is performed, followed by removal of the masks.

12. The coated modules are baked out for 16 hours at 50oC in an oven.

13. A detailed post-coating inspection is performed at the coating facility to

observe staking or coating defects, also mechanical damage to components on
modules.

14. The coated modules are vacuum baked for 24 hours to remove residual
volatiles. This step ensures the conformal coating material will meet the
outgassing requirements in NASA SP-R-0022A4.

15. The conformal coated modules are returned to Sandia engineers. As with the
initial transport, they are packaged in anti-static bags to avoid ESD damage,
and are transported in lined carry boxes to avoid mechanical shock/vibration
damage.

In the event of inadvertent damage to modules during the coating process, Sandia
engineers work in collaboration with the coating contractor work to perform repairs and
ensure the modules are operational and on schedule.

SECTION 2: SATELLITE BOX ASSEMBLY

I. Conformal Coating in the Production of Satellite Box Assemblies

Conformal coating of electronic modules is just one of numerous processing and
production steps that result in the successful manufacturing, qualification, and fielding of
a GPS satellite box assembly in a system that is subsequently integrated into a space

15
vehicle (SV) for launch. Obviously, in a production process that contains a significant
number of individual processes of varying complexities, appropriate coordination of the
many production steps performed by a considerable number of electrical and mechanical
engineers, technologists, and contractors is critical to providing a functional and reliable
satellite box assembly in a timely fashion. Even with good coordination of the
production process, the total time required to assemble satellite box assemblies for flight
systems is significant.
To document the amount of time required to fabricate a satellite box assembly, a
box assembly production timeline has been constructed which indicates the major
production processes that occur and the approximate time required for each process. The
time necessary to complete most of the production processes may vary somewhat and
cannot be precisely determined, so a time range is specified. Satellite box production
time can fluctuate because satellite box assembly designs may vary in size, functionality,
and complexity, some requiring more production and processing time than others. Time
required for manufacturing, processing, and testing may also differ depending on the
amount of tuning, component replacement, and repair that is required in specific
situations.
There are a number of specifications currently in place that document process
requirements for many of the production steps in the assembly of flight hardware,
including conformal coating. Requirements for various processes including Components,
Fabrication, and Repair (CFR) quality assurance processes28, bare printed circuit board
fabrication29, PWB module fabrication30, procurement requirements for electrical parts31,
conformal coating requirements32, and pre- and post-conformal coating inspection27 can
be found in individual specifications for additional information.

II. Satellite Box Assembly Timeline

Based on past experience of engineers and supporting personnel in assembling
satellite boxes for the GPS program, a GPS satellite box assembly process flow timeline
has been constructed and is shown in Figure 2. The time required for the various
processing steps are generally expressed in ranges of time because, as was previously
mentioned, fabrication time can vary depending on a number of factors including the
complexity and size of the assembly, time required for component procurement, and the
type and number of production issues (e.g., electrical and mechanical failures) that are
encountered. The GPS satellite box production steps are described in greater detail below
including potential risks of production issues and some ways that the risks are mitigated.
Most of the production steps involve handling, assembly, and/or testing of
components, modules, and systems. These types of operations present the potential risks
of electrical failures such as electrostatic discharge (ESD) of static sensitive parts and
electrical overstress (EOS) of components, mechanical damage due to mishandling such
as bumping or dropping an assembly, and contamination of assemblies from dirt, dust,
particles, skin oils, etc. Proper handling, assembly, and testing techniques should be
employed to mitigate the risks of electrical and mechanical damage and contamination.
These include (but are not limited to) appropriate use of anti-static packaging handling
equipment to avoid ESD, following established test procedures to mitigate EOS during
testing, proper packing during handling and transport to avoid mechanical damage, and
use of gloves and protective bags to avoid contamination.

16
Component procurement: Components are procured from various suppliers. There is a
risk of procuring incorrect parts, either through incorrect design specification, ordering,
or through suppliers providing incorrect parts. Component acceptance procedures below
are used to identify incorrect parts that are inadvertently received. Components may be
procured in as little as 1 week, or it may take 26 weeks or more. A typical time frame for
component procurement is 8-10 weeks.
It should be noted that there is a significant amount of preliminary work that must
be done prior to component procurement to determine what components will be required
for the satellite system. A concept of operations, system requirements and design
(including environments), subsystems requirements and design, and module requirements
and design must be established before components procurement and subsequent steps can
proceed.

Component Acceptance: Components must meet various mechanical, electrical, and rad
hardness requirements. Prohibited materials (e.g., pure tin, cadmium plated, selenium,
zinc) must be avoided. These metals are capable of forming metal whiskers which can
cause short circuits if they come in contact with conductors in electronic assemblies. For
example, tin whisker formation10-16 is possible with uncoated pure tin leads. XRF
analysis is done on samples in each lot of parts received to screen out prohibited
materials. Destructive Physical Analysis (DPA) is also performed on samples from all
new procurement lots received, except passive parts and connectors; however these
component types do require Prohibited Material screening. Improper packaging of
components shipped from a supplier to Sandia and from Sandia to the fabrication facility
has occurred, which presents a risk of damage to parts. Parts must be appropriately
packaged to avoid shipping damage. Component acceptance will typically take from 1 to
3 weeks, depending on how quickly DPA is completed.

Component Kitting: Component kitting is the process of placing appropriate components

into individual kits for module fabrication. Kitting takes approximately 1 week to
complete, provided that all required components are in stock. There is a risk of incorrect
components being placed into module kits. Care must be taken by component handlers to
insure that the correct components are placed into component kits. Mechanical damage
(i.e., bent leads) has occurred during shipping to the fabrication facility due to improper
packaging. Fabrication facilities include Aeroflex Corp., GTC, L&L, and Goodrich.

Module Fabrication: Module board and motherboard fabrication is included in this step.
Module fabrication can take from 2 to 8 weeks depending on the PWB fabricator, but an
average fabrication time is 6 weeks. Significant PWB fabrication issues include design
complexity (e.g., board layers, density), production schedule, and cost. Board designs
have become much more complex, with more potential for problems and failures. Risks
associated with module fabrication including electrical short circuits and open circuits are
mitigated by the addition of Highly Accelerated Thermal Shock (HATS) testing on PWB
designs that meet specific design feature criteria. Currently, no requirements exist for
passing HATS testing as the gateway to assembly for GBD IIF. At this time, HATS
testing is for informational purposes only.

17
Housing Fabrication: In this step, the housing for the box assembly is fabricated.
Housing fabrication is a multi-step process which includes procurement of the housing
materials, machining, assembly, soldering, and alignment of the housing. The entire
process takes approximately 5 months to complete. Housing fabrication is performed in
parallel with other box assembly production steps including module fabrication, module
assembly, and module testing. Lubricating oils are used in the machining of metals, and
metal shavings and particles are generated during the machining process. Oils, metal
shavings, and particles are contaminants that could damage to electronic components and
PWBs and must be removed.

Module Assembly: Modules are assembled by soldering components on to PWBs. The

time required for module assembly can vary with module size and complexity; however
the average assembly time is 6 weeks from the time that all components are available.
The potential exists for assembly errors. Assembly errors include installing parts in the
wrong orientation, installing incorrect parts, and parts being damaged during installation.
Risk of assembly errors is mitigated by performing Flying probe In Circuit Testing (ICT)
on assemblies to test for shorts, open circuits, correct component value and component
orientation. As with any testing that is performed on modules or systems, there is a risk
of mechanical or electrical damage, and contamination from ICT and care must be taken
during testing to avoid these problems. However, ICT testing is necessary to identify
possible module assembly errors before proceeding to subsequent steps.

Module Test: A module test is performed at Sandia at ambient temperature and from
temperatures of -40oC to 80oC. Module testing can take up to 12 weeks to complete.
Analog testing takes up to 12 weeks, power supply testing requires 6 to 8 weeks, and
digital testing takes 4 weeks, with the various types of testing being done in parallel.
Engineer probing during troubleshooting has also been found to cause damage to both
components and bare boards when not done properly. Proper handling, grounding, and
testing techniques should be used to avoid damage of modules during testing.

Box Assembly: The box assembly step includes installation of the motherboard into the
box housing, secondary wiring or other secondary assembly operations on the
motherboard, and installation of modules into the box housing. Box assembly typically
takes about 6 weeks.

Box Test: This is a fully functional test of the box assembly with thermal cycling. Box
testing requires approximately 8 weeks for completion. There is a potential for
functional, ESD or EOS failure that would then necessitate repair. Functional failure is
component infant mortality failure not caused by ESD or EOS.

Initial System Test: This is an initial test of multiple box assemblies linked together in a
functional system, and takes place in a general electronics lab environment with
established test procedures. The initial system test is done in about 1 week for a mature
GPS system design. For a new system, the initial system test could be significantly
longer (e.g., multiple weeks) in duration.

18
Box Characterization: Box characterization is an assessment of its initial functional
performance. The characterization is completed in about 4 weeks.

Box Disassembly: Modules are removed from the box assembly in preparation for
conformal coating. Box disassembly is done in about 2 days. Preparation of the
motherboard in the box housing is also done prior to conformal coating. For the GPS
program, motherboards are typically not removed from box housings for coating.

Pre-Conformal Coating Module Inspection and Repair: A visual inspection of modules

and the motherboard is performed after box disassembly and prior to conformal coating.
The inspection and repair is completed in about 1 to 2 weeks. It has been found from
past experience during conformal coat pre-inspection that repairs are needed on up to
50% of modules. There is a risk of missing a damaged component on a module that
could be put through to conformal coating. If a damaged component is discovered after
conformal coating, the coating must be removed from the region of the component, the
component must be replaced, and the coating must be reapplied with a brush-on
technique. Care must be taken when repairing or replacing damaged components
because there is a risk that other components could be damaged in the process.

Module Conformal Coat: This includes all required steps for conformal coating of
modules (readiness review, module inspection, transport to the coating facility (e.g.,
GTC), cleaning, staking, tacking, masking, coating, curing, bake-out, post-coat
inspection, thermal vacuum to remove volatiles, and delivery to engineers). This entire
process for all modules in a box assembly typically takes 5 to 6 weeks to complete. An
individual module that is given high priority can be completed in about 5 days. Proper
cleaning of modules (and keeping them clean prior to coating) is essential to promote
good adhesion of conformal coating and avoid delamination from surfaces. There is a
possibility of mechanical damage during all of the process steps related to conformal
coating. There is also a risk of ESD damage during these processes, but grounding and
other appropriate measures are employed to avoid ESD. It was proposed that the designs
of about 50% of module assemblies are stable and could be conformal coated
immediately after initial assembly, prior to the initial delivery to Engineering. Conformal
coating after initial assembly would only be appropriate for modules meeting certain
criteria (e.g., no Actels). Electrical engineers with the GPS program have commented
that electrical repairs are much more complicated and take significantly longer to
complete after conformal coating has been applied due to necessity to remove coating in
the region of the repair. If conformal coating is applied before assembly errors have been
identified, significant delays could occur due to need to selectively remove the coating,
especially in situations where large numbers of components need to be repaired, replaced,
or reoriented.
A new process of recording digital images of completed modules has been
instituted by other Satellite programs and is being considered for GPS. This process
takes approximately 1 day for all modules.

19
Box Reassembly: After modules are returned from conformal coating, they are
reassembled into the box housing. The box reassembly takes approximately 2 days.

Box Functional Test: A functional test is performed after the box reassembly. The
functional test is completed in about 1 week.

Primary System Test: This step involves the testing of the entire system which consists of
multiple box assemblies. The primary system test takes approximately 1 to 4 weeks to
complete.

Box Assembly Close-out Vibration/Shock Test: This is the final vibration/shock test for
the box assembly. Testing time is about 2 weeks. There is the possibility of mechanical
damage during vibration/shock testing.

System Test: The final system test is performed at Sandia prior to shipping to the
contractor. The system test is typically done in 1 week. The possibility of ESD and EOS
failures exist during this testing.

Readiness Pre-Thermal Vacuum: Preparation for thermal vacuum testing is done in this
step. This preparation is completed in about 1 week.

Thermal Vacuum Test: Thermal vacuum (TVAC) testing of the system is intended to
replicate the space environment. Testing is typically completed in about 2 weeks. There
is a risk of electrical failures during thermal vacuum testing. There is also a risk of
thermal overstress which should normally be mitigated by using proper test procedures
during TVAC.

Box Assembly Final/Post Environmental Test: This is the final testing of the box
assembly that is conducted after the thermal vacuum environment test. Testing can take
from 1 to 4 weeks to complete.

Post-Ship System Test: A system test is performed after shipping to the contractor. The
system test is typically completed in about 3 days. There is the possibility that
mechanical damage could occur during shipping. There is also a risk of ESD and EOS
failures during the post-ship system test.

SV Integration and Test: The satellite system is integrated into the space vehicle (SV) and
then tested. Testing is performed by Sandia at the contractor site and can take from 6 to
12 months to complete. The potential exists for mechanical and electrical failures during
integration of the system into the SV.
Subsequent to SV integration and test are pre-launch, launch, and operations
phases of the satellite system. The time required for these additional phases can vary
significantly depending on the functionality and complexity of the satellite system.

20
 Figure 2: GPS Satellite Box Assembly Process Flow Timeline

Component procurement Component acceptance Component kitting Module fabrication

Average of 8-10 weeks (but can 1 to 3 weeks Approximately 1 week 2-8 weeks, average 6 weeks
take from 1 to 26+ weeks)

Module Assembly Module test Box assembly

Housing fabrication
6 weeks average Analog 12 weeks, power ~ 6 weeks
About 5 months total, done
supplies 6-8 weeks, digital 4
in parallel with other steps
weeks, done in parallel

Initial system test

Box test ~ 1 week for existing Box characterization Box disassembly
~ 8 weeks systems, multiple weeks for Approximately 4 weeks ~ 2 days
new systems

Module conformal coat

Module inspection and repair Box reassembly Box functional test
5-6 weeks average for all
1-2 weeks average ~ 2 days Approximately 1 week
modules in box assembly

Box assembly close-out System test Readiness pre-thermal vacuum

Primary system test vibration/shock test
1 to 4 weeks 1 to 4 weeks ~ 1 week
Approximately 2 weeks

Box assembly final/post Post-ship system test SV integration and test

Thermal vacuum test environmental test
Approximately 2 weeks ~ 3 days 26 to 52 weeks
1 to 4 weeks

Satellite box assembly process = 113 to 160 weeks (approx. 2 to 3 years) total
21
SECTION 3: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FUTURE WORK
Conformal coatings are used in space applications on printed wiring board (PWB)
assemblies primarily as a protective barrier against environmental contaminants. Coating
has been used at Sandia for decades in satellite applications including the GPS satellite
program. There has been a perception that the conformal coating process and related
processes are potentially troublesome, resulting in mechanical and electrical failures of
coated electronic modules, resulting in damaged units requiring repair and production
delays. There has also been disagreement on the necessary function of conformal
coatings in electronic modules and whether coatings are needed at all. Until now, there
has not been an examination of these potential conformal coating issues. This report is a
result of an initial conformal coating value/risk assessment for Sandia satellite programs
to attempt to address these concerns.
The primary benefit of conformal coating of electronics is protection from
environmental contaminants including, dust, dirt, moisture, and corrosive vapors. During
production and testing in the earth environment, and also in the zero-gravity space
environment, there is the potential for random particles and contaminants to contact and
span closely spaced electrical connections, possibly resulting in short circuits or other
electrical failures that could cause partial or total loss of satellite functionality.
Conformal coating is used to prevent these types of failures.
There are five primary types of conformal coating materials used for
environmental protection of electronics: acrylics, silicones, polyurethanes, epoxies, and
parylenes. Each type has a different combination of properties, with possible advantages
and disadvantages in performance, processing, and removability.
There are also other possible benefits to using conformal coatings. Coating may
provide a margin of structural integrity for components on electronic modules. They may
also delay the formation of potentially damaging tin whiskers from pure tin on electrical
component leads. While these benefits are potentially valuable, there had been limited
work done in these areas, especially in documenting the structural benefits of conformal
coatings for electronics.
There has been the perception that risks involved with conformal coating of
electronics may outweigh the benefits. An initial examination of the conformal coating
process and the failures that have been experienced indicated no serious problems that
were inherent to conformal coatings or the coating process. As with all production steps
involving the handling, assembly, testing, and transport of electrical assemblies, proper
electrical grounding equipment should be employed for static sensitive components to
prevent electrical failures, and proper handling and packaging should be used to avoid
mechanical damage.
Conformal coating is a part of the entire assembly process for manufacturing
satellite box assemblies. Satellite boxes are very complicated electromechanical
assemblies that provide various functionalities to Sandia’s satellite systems. Based on
Sandia’s previous experience with assembling satellite boxes, a GPS satellite box
assembly timeline was constructed. It was determined that the entire box assembly
process can take from 113 weeks to 160 weeks (approximately 2 to 3 years) to complete.
The actual completion time for assembly of boxes in a system can depend on a number of

22
variables including the availability of components and materials, complexity of the
designs, and the type and number of assembly, handling, and testing problems (e.g.,
mechanical and electrical failures) that occur during the production process.
Based on what has been learned from this initial conformal coating value/risk
assessment, the following items are recommended for future work in support of Sandia
satellite programs:

• It is recommended that additional work be done to investigate the structurally

beneficial effects of the various types of conformal coatings on satellite electronic
modules as well the potential for failures to occur due to stresses induced on
solder joints. Using a suitable electronic test structure, coated and uncoated
specimens would be subjected to thermal cycling and shock/vibration
environments. Failure analysis would be performed to identify any possible
failures induced by the coatings. This work may also lead to a more reliable
mechanical model of solder joint behavior in the presence of conformal coatings.

• The potential benefit of tin whisker mitigation provided by conformal coatings

used in Sandia satellite programs should be studied. Understanding the ability of
conformal coatings to delay the formation of tin whiskers may help to predict how
long whisker formation could be delayed by conformal coating. Conformal
coatings for tin whisker mitigation should be used in conjunction with proper
electrical design and procurement of appropriate electrical components to avoid
the occurrence of tin whiskers.

• It is recommended that further study be done to determine which of the available

types of conformal coating may provide the best combination of properties and
processing advantages for Sandia satellite programs including the ability to be
removed so as to allow for repair of electronics after coating. A study comparing
coatings based on properties, processing, and ease of removal could be conducted
to arrive at the coating(s) having the best overall combination of these features.

• It has been questioned whether conformal coating is absolutely needed for space
applications. Before a decision is made to stop using conformal coating, it is
recommended that reliability testing of satellite electronics be done without
conformal coating in environments replicating as much as possible the space
environment including particle contamination.

Acknowledgments

Valuable information on conformal coating for Sandia satellite programs and the
production of satellite boxes was provided by Kate Olsberg (5761), Gary Shannon
(5761), Steve Yearout (5733), Curtis Gibson (2611), Kevin Marbach (5765), and Jim
Garsow (5765).

23
References

1. G. O’Brien, “A Common Sense Guide to Conformal Coating,” Electronic

Manufacturing (April 1988).

2. J. Waryold, J. Lawrence, “Selection Criteria for the Use of Conformal

Coatings,” proceedings of the NEPCON ’92 Conference, Anaheim, CA (February
1991).

3. E. R. Hess, “The Pros of Conformal Coatings,” technical bulletin by

GarrettCom, Inc., Overland Park, KS (November 2006).

4. NASA specification, NASA SP-R-0022A, “Vacuum Stability Requirements of

Polymeric Material for Spacecraft Application.”

5. ASTM E595, “Standard Test Method for Total Mass Loss and Collected
Volatile Condensable Materials from Outgassing in a Vacuum Environment.”

6. D. Hillman, N. Cavanah, J. Reinig, L. Keehner, E. Hofer, “An Investigation of

the Effects of Printed Wiring Board Surface Finish and Conformal Coating for
Ball Grid Array Assembly,” proceedings of the Apex 2000 Conference, Long
Beach, CA (March 2000).

7. H. Qi, C. Wilkinison, M. Osterman, M. Pecht, “Failure Analysis and Virtual

Qualification of PBGA Under Multiple Environmental Loadings,” proceedings of
the 54th Electronic Component and Technology Conference, Las Vegas, NV
(June 2004).

8. A. G. Darrin, B. Le, J. S. Kadesch, “Study of Conformal Coating on Chip-on-

Board Technology for Space Applications,” NASA Technical Memorandum
104642 (August 1997).

9. Technical discussion on conformal coatings for space applications with James

Blanche, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, July 17, 2007.

10. J. S. Kadesch, H. Leidecker, “Effects of Conformal Coat on Tin Whisker Growth,”

proc. of the 37th IMAPS Nordic Annual Conference (September, 2000) pp. 108-116.

11. J.S. Kadesch, and J. Brusse, "The Continuing Dangers of Tin Whiskers and Attempts
to Control them with Conformal Coating", NASA's EEE Links Newsletter, July 2001.

12. T. A. Woodrow, E. A. Ledbury, “Evalulation of Conformal Coatings as a Tin

Whisker Mitigation Strategy,” IPC/JEDEC 8th International Conference on Lead-Free
Electronic Components and Assemblies, San Jose, CA, April 18-20, 2005.

24
13. T. A. Woodrow, E. A. Ledbury, “Evalulation of Conformal Coatings as a Tin
Whisker Mitigation Strategy, Part II,” proc. Of the SMTA International Conference,
Rosemont, IL, September 24-28, 2006.

14. D. Hillman, S. Margheim, E. Straw, “The Use of Tin/Bismuth Plating for Tin
Whisker Mitigation on Fabricated Mechanical Parts,” presented at the CALCE Tin
Whisker Symposium, Rockwell Collins, Inc. (April 2007).

15. Troubling Tin Tendrils,” L. Adams, Metal and Metal Parts article published in
Appliance Design Magazine, November 2006.

16. “Can Nickel Barriers Eliminate Tin Whiskers?” J. Baliga, Semiconductor Packaging
article published in Semiconductor International, November 2004.

17. NASA Whisker Failures website, “Publicly” Reported Failure References: Tin (and
Other Metal) Whisker Induced Failures. http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/failures/index.htm

18. J. J. Licari, L. A. Hughes, “Handbook of Polymer Coatings For Electronics:

Chemistry, Technology and Applications,” 2nd edition, Noyes Publications, Park Ridge,
NY (1990).

19. Conformal Coating Frequently Asked Questions, Thermospray Company, Inc.

(Sarasota, FL) website, http://www.thermospray.com/ccfaq.html

20. “Conformal Coating,” Rabbit Semiconductor Corp. (Davis, CA) Technical

Note TN303, http://www.rabbitsemiconductor.com

21. S. Wadhwani, “Parylene Coatings and Applications,” Paint & Coatings

Industry article, www.pcimag.com, October 2006.

22. R. Olson, “Quality Techniques for Optimizing Parylene Conformal Coating,”

proc. of the NEPCON West ’94 Conference, Anaheim, CA, February 27 – March
4, 1994.

23. L. Habershaw, “Vapor Phase Deposited Conformal Coating for Electronic

Applications,” proc. of Corrosion ’89 Conference, New Orleans, LA, April 17-29,
1989.

24. Parylene Specifications & Properties, parylene technical bulletin,

Specialty Coating Systems®, Indianapolis, IN, 2007,
http://www.scscoatings.com/parylene_knowledge/specifications.aspx

25. NASA Technical Standard, NASA-STD-8739.1, “Workmanship Standard for

Staking and Conformal Coating of Printed Wiring Boards and Electronic
Assemblies,” August 6, 1999.

25
26. Hysol® PC18M Technical Data Sheet, Henkel Corporation, June 2004.

27. “Quality Instruction (QI) for Pre and Post Conformal Coating Inspection,
MSTC PS-06003, Original version, July 1, 1997.

28. “Components, Fabrication, and Repair (CFR) Quality Assurance Processes

for Satellite Projects,” MSTC PS-06-001, Original version, May 30, 1997.

29. “Sandia Satellite Program Fabrication Requirements for Flight Printed Circuit
Boards (Bare),” MSTC PS-06-029, Revision B, April 25, 2003.

30. “Sandia Satellite Program Assembly Requirements for Flight Printed Circuit
Boards/Modules,” MSTS PS-06-028, Original version, July 24, 1997.

31. “Procurement Requirements for Electrical, Electronic & Electromechanical

(EEE) Flight Stock Parts,” PS-06-007, February 19, 1997.

32. “Sandia Satellite Program Conformal Coating Requirements for Flight

Hardware,” MSTC PS-06-024, Revision A, August 4, 2004.

26
Distribution:

1 MS 0966 Tim Gardner, 5761

1 MS 0966 Gary Shannon, 5761
1 MS 0966 Kate Olsberg, 5761
1 MS 0530 Bob Habbit, Jr., 5711
1 MS 0406 Gayle Thayer, 5711
1 MS 0980 Doug Clark, 5732
1 MS 0982 Steve Yearout, 5733
1 MS 0971 Ed Sams, 5733
1 MS 0982 Kevin Marbach, 5765
1 MS 0886 Jim Aubert, 1821
5 MS 0888 Ed Russick, 1821
1 MS 0889 Paul Vianco, 1824
1 MS 0899 Technical Library, 9536 (electronic copy)

27